NC: Maintenance of Health/Behavior Change Following Short-term CBT (2008)
The objective of this study was to examine the long-term weight loss maintenance of individuals completing a structured weight loss program.
- Studies were required to:
- Have been conducted in the United States
- Have included participants in a structured weight loss program
- Have provided follow-up data with variance estimates for more than two years
- Primary outcome variables were weight loss maintenance in kilograms, weight loss maintenance as a percent of initial weight loss and weight loss as a percentage of initial body weight (reduced weight).
- Two reports were excluded because they did not provide specific weight-loss information at follow-up times
- Another study was excluded because the group included only children of persons with Type 2 diabetes.
Recruitment
- A MEDLINE literature search for the period of 1970 to 1999 was used to identify candidate studies
- An "ancestry approach" was also used by consulting reference lists from single studies and pertinent literature reviews.
Statistical Analysis
For each study, summary results of all reported values and additional relevant study attributes were recorded, coded and tabulated for analysis.
- The primary effect estimate was calculated as follows: Weight loss maintenance (kg) plus initial body weight minus body weight at follow-up (1)
- Other outcome variables were calculated as follows:
- Parentage weight loss maintenance (percentage) = (weight loss maintenance / average initial weight loss) x 100 (2)
- Reduced weight (percentage) = (weight loss maintenance / average initial weight loss) x 100 (3)
- Parentage weight loss maintenance (percentage) = (weight loss maintenance / average initial weight loss) x 100 (2)
- The variance estimates for these two outcome variables, respectively, were calculated as follows:
- Variance (weight loss maintenance) / (average initial weight loss)2
- Variance (weight loss maintenance) / (average initial body weight)2.
- Timing of measurements: One, two, three, four, five years post-intervention
- Dependent variables:
- Weight loss maintenance in kilograms
- Weight loss maintenance as a percent of initial weight loss
- Weight loss as a percentage of initial body weight (reduced weight)
- Independent variables: Very low energy diets (VLED) and hypoenergetic balanced diets (HBD).
Demographic Data for All Studies
Reference | N | Sex |
Age (Years) |
Diet |
Length of Treatment (Weeks) |
Initial Weight (Kg) |
Weight Loss (Kg) |
Follow-up (Years) |
Available for Follow-up (Percentage) |
Self-Reported Weight (Percentage) |
Anderson, et al |
71 29 |
F M |
43 43 |
VLED VLED |
17 12 |
94 116 |
17.9 18.2 |
1,2 & 4 1,2 & 4 |
58 58 |
100 100 |
Anderson, et al |
72 28 |
F M |
41 41 |
VLED VLED |
22 21 |
106.8 125.1 |
31.9 36 |
1 & 2 1 & 2 |
73 73 |
0 0 |
Anderson, et al |
55 25 |
F M |
42 44 |
VLED VLED |
28 23 |
120.7 148 |
32.4 41.6 |
1 & 2 1 & 2 |
58 58 |
80 80 |
Anderson, et al |
112 72 40 |
F&M F M |
46 46 43 |
VLED VLED VLED |
22 24 21 |
108 96.4 128.8 |
129.1 26.5 35.6 |
1,2,4, & 5 3 3 |
100 100 100 |
30 30 30 |
Dubbert and Wilson | 62 | F&M | NA | HBD | 19 | 91.1 | 7.8 | 1&2 | 96 | 100 |
Eubank, et al | 45 | F&M | 50 | VLED | 23 | 100 | 28 | 2 | 82 | 4.4 |
Fitzwater, et al | 213 | F&M | 40 | HBD | 30 | 103.4 | 7.3 | 2 | 69 | 60 |
Flynn and Walsh |
189 66 |
F M |
43 |
VLED VLED |
17 18 |
102.8 123.9 |
37.9 39.1 |
2 2 |
83 83 |
100 100 |
Graham, et al | 62 | F&M | 46 | HBD | 8 | 97.7 | 4.5 | 5 | 97 | 0 |
Grodstein, et al | 325 | F&M | NA | VLED | 22 | 105.9 | 22 | 3 | 59 | 100 |
Hall | 10 | F&M | NA | HBD | 10 | 83.3 | 6.1 | 2 | 90 | 0 |
Hartman, et al |
73 29 |
F M |
42 46 |
VLED VLED |
22 22 |
99.5 116.5 |
24.7 33.5 |
2 2 |
74 74 |
43 43 |
Hensrud, et al | 24 | F | 59 | HBD | 15 | 73.5 | 12.5 | 1,2,3 & 4 | 92 | 12 |
Holden, et al |
80 38 |
F M |
47 46 |
VLED VLED |
23 27 |
108 140.1 |
25.2 44.2 |
3 3 |
100 100 |
100 100 |
Jeffery, et al | 89 | M | 53 | HBD | 15 | 100.2 | 13.5 | 1 & 2 |
93 |
0 |
Jordon and Canavan | 437 | F&M | 47 | HBD | 20 | 97.9 | 8.5 | 3 & 5 | 85 | 100 |
Kirschenbaum, et al | 65 | F&M | 38 | HBD | 12 | 86.8 | 6.1 | 2 | 90.3 | 0 |
Kramer, et al |
83 38 114 |
F&M F M |
53 48 51 |
HBD HBD HBD |
15 15 15 |
100.5 83.1 101.1 |
13 8.6 13 |
5 1,2,3,&4 1,2,3,&4 |
93 76 76 |
7.2 7.2 7.2 |
Lavery and Loewry |
386 123 |
F M |
45 45 |
HBD HBD |
8 8 |
78.7 101.3 |
3.5 6.2 |
2 2 |
98 98 |
100 100 |
Murphy, et al | 34 | F&M | NA | HBD |
10 |
87.5 | 7.4 | 1,2&4 | 77 | 61.8 |
Nunn, et al |
44 16 |
F M |
51 48 |
VLED VLED |
22 22 |
98.9 119.1 |
23.2 27.7 |
1&2 1&2 |
82 98 |
18 18 |
Pavlou, et al | 49 | F&M | 38 | HBD | 12 | 100.1 | 13.3 | 3 | 63 | 4.4 |
Stunkard and Penick | 32 | F&M | 40 | HBD | 12 | 97 | 8.2 | 5 | 84 | 63 |
Stalonas, et al |
30 6 |
F M |
31 31 |
HBD HBD |
10 10 |
79.4 101.6 |
4.9 6.3 |
5 5 |
82 82 |
0 0 |
Sikand, et al | 30 | F | 39 | VLED | 17 | 106.1 | 19.8 | 2 | 50 | 100 |
Wadden, et al | 50 | F&M | 44 | Mixed | 23 | 108.8 | 16.1 | 1&3 | 90 | 6.7 |
Wadden, et al | 76 | F | 42 | Mixed | 23 | 106 | 14.6 | 1&5 | 62 | 47 |
Wadden and Frey |
508 113 |
F M |
44 47 |
VLED VLED |
26 26 |
104.9 134.1 |
23.7 34.3 |
2,3,4&5 2,3,4&5 |
54 54 |
100 100 |
Walsh and Flynn |
189 66 |
F M |
45 47 |
VLED VLED |
18 19 |
100.7 123.3 |
19.7 27.2 |
4 4 |
52.4 66.7 |
100 100 |
VLED=Very low calorie diet
HBD=Hyoenergetic balanced diet
Weight Maintenance of All Subjects and Selected Subgroups
Group | Years of Follow-up | Number of Studies | Number of Subjects |
Initial Weight (Kg) |
Weight Loss (Kg) |
Weight Loss Maintenance (Kg) |
Percentage Weight Loss Maintenance(Kg) |
Reduced Weight(Percentage) |
All | 4.5 | 13 | 1081 | 98 | 14 | 3.00 (2.54, 3.45) | 23.40 (20.4,26.4) | 3.15 (2.69, 3.62) |
Men | 4.4 | 5 | 247 | 115 | 18.30 | 4.70 (2.86, 6.54) | 30.50 (21.5,39.4) | 4.48 (2.89, 6.06) |
Women | 4.4 | 6 | 534 | 95 | 16.60 | 4.66 (3.52, 5.80) | 23.60 (18.4, 28.8) | 4.67 (2.55, 5.79) |
VLED | 4.5 | 4 | 578 | 106 | 24.10 | 7.05 (6.04, 8.06) | 29.40 (25.2, 33.6) | 6.59 (5.65, 7.54) |
HBD | 4.5 | 8 | 448 | 93 | 8.80 | 1.99 (1.47, 5.51) | 17.80 (13.4, 22.2) | 2.11 (1.56, 2.65) |
Lower Exercise | 2.7 | 6 | 272 | 110 | 22.00 | 7.47 (6.29,8.66) | 27.20 (22.8, 34.1) | 6.6 (5.61, 7.71) |
Higher Exercise | 2.7 | 6 | 220 | 110 | 20.90 | 14.99 (13.48, 16.49) | 53.80 (48.4, 59.2) | 12.49 (11.24, 13.74) |
Other Findings
- Exercise appears to be positively related to successful weight loss maintenance
- Use of VLEDs or weight loss of more than 20kg was strongly related to long-term successful weight loss maintenance
- No significant difference was observed in weight loss maintenance or weight reduction between women and men.
- Weight loss maintenance four to five years after a structured weight loss program averaged approximately 3.0kg or approximately 23.4% of initial weight loss, representing a sustained reduction in body weight of 3.2%
- Thirteen very low energy diet (VLED) studies and 14 hypoenergetic balanced diet studies were evaluated
- Median length of VLED intervention was 22 weeks and median length of HBD intervention was 12 weeks (P<0.001)
- The percentage of individuals at four or five years of follow-up for VLEDs and HBDs were 55.4% and 79.7%, respectively
- Individuals maintained 67% (95% CI: 65%, 69%) of their initial weight loss at one year, 44% (95% CI: 42%, 46%) at two years, 32% (95% CI: 29%, 32%) at three years, 28% (95% CI: 25%, 30%) at four years and 21% (95% CI: 18%, 25%) at five years.
- This meta-analysis of 29 reports of long-term weight loss maintenance indicated that weight loss maintenance four or five years after a structured weight loss program averages 3.0kg or 23% of initial weight loss, representing a sustained reduction in body weight of 3.2%
- Individuals who participated in a VLED program or lost more than 20kg had a weight loss maintenance at four or five years of 7.0kg or 29% of initial weight loss, representing a sustained reduction in body weight of 6.6%.
Government: | VA-CDEA | ||
Industry: |
|
||
University/Hospital: | VA Medical Center, University of Kentucky | ||
Not-for-profit |
|
- Meta-analysis of reseach conducted between 1970 to1999
- Most studies made use of VLCD products no longer on the market.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
|
|||
Relevance Questions | |||
1. | Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? | Yes | |
2. | Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? | Yes | |
3. | Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice? | Yes | |
4. | Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? | Yes | |
Validity Questions | |||
1. | Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? | Yes | |
2. | Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? | Yes | |
3. | Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? | Yes | |
4. | Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? | Yes | |
5. | Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? | Yes | |
6. | Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? | Yes | |
7. | Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? | Yes | |
8. | Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included? | Yes | |
9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed? | Yes | |
10. | Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |